If you read the genealogies literally . . .

[Vance]

If you read the Genesis genealogies literally (which is the primary argument used for a young earth, using them to "count back"), the flood takes place smack dab in the middle of the sixth Egyptian Dynasty.

So, either one of two things must be true:

1. Either the genealogies can not be read literally and used for "counting" back to the Creation event.

OR

2. The flood was not worldwide.

I still have not heard any young earth creationist adequately explain this one. I think YEC's have to make a choice here.

 

[lucaspa]

If you read the Genesis genealogies literally (which is the primary argument used for a young earth, using them to "count back"), the flood takes place smack dab in the middle of the sixth Egyptian Dynasty.

So, either one of two things must be true:

1. Either the genealogies can not be read literally and used for "counting" back to the Creation event.

OR

2. The flood was not worldwide.

I still have not heard any young earth creationist adequately explain this one. I think YEC's have to make a choice here.

This is one of the problems with literalism. The Flood supposedly takes place in the middle of several civilizations that show no break. For instance, the archeological dig at Jericho shows continuous habitation back 10,000 years with no evidence of a flood. Oxford Companion to the Bible, "Jericho," pp. 348-349; Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan, eds.

How can this be?

 

[Vance]

Some get around this by arguing that the flood took place more than 10,000 years ago (they often say around 12,000 years ago, to give themselves some room). They argue that the genealogies are incomplete and contain gaps and, by this process, they can push back the date to a "safer" period of time (by "safer" I mean a time for which we don't have "death nell" archealogical and historical evidence against a world-wide flood).

The irony of this argument is that it does exactly what they accuse Old Earth Creationists of doing: allowing the evidence of scientific discovery (in this case history and archealogy) to guide how you interpret Scripture. Without the outside evidence, they had stuck with the 6,000 year old earth and flood around 2,300 BC, not even considering any gaps or omissions in the genealogies. With the evidence, they re-examine the text to see whether there is a reading which is consistent with this new evidence, even though it is NOT the plain, literal reading of Scripture.

Actually, I applaud them for at least using the right approach, but then they turn right around and condemn others for using the exact same approach for other Scripture.

The other option for them, of course, is to accept the literal reading of the genealogies, but read the flood as local. I guess they choose the former as the lesser of two evils.

 

[troodon]

Did you steal this from me?

 

[Vance]

Ah, smart people ask the same questions!

 

[lucaspa]

Some get around this by arguing that the flood took place more than 10,000 years ago (they often say around 12,000 years ago, to give themselves some room).

A problem with that argument is that they now predate the technology necessary to build the Ark.

They argue that the genealogies are incomplete and contain gaps and, by this process, they can push back the date to a "safer" period of time (by "safer" I mean a time for which we don't have "death nell" archealogical and historical evidence against a world-wide flood).

The irony of this argument is that it does exactly what they accuse Old Earth Creationists of doing: allowing the evidence of scientific discovery (in this case history and archealogy) to guide how you interpret Scripture. Without the outside evidence, they had stuck with the 6,000 year old earth and flood around 2,300 BC, not even considering any gaps or omissions in the genealogies. With the evidence, they re-examine the text to see whether there is a reading which is consistent with this new evidence, even though it is NOT the plain, literal reading of Scripture.

Yes, that is one of the ironies. Another is that they abandon the Bible as true. What they are saying is that the Bible is incomplete. IOW, important information and truth is witheld from us. However, that is the same as saying the Bible isn't true.

What's worse, it allows them -- fallible humans -- to insert whatever information they want into those "gaps".

So, having castigated evolutionists for making a fallible, human theory, they turn around and make a fallible, human theory about what was in the gaps the Bible doesn't mention!

Consistency has never been a strong suit of creationists. All part of the ad hoc hypothesis addiction they have.

The other option for them, of course, is to accept the literal reading of the genealogies, but read the flood as local. I guess they choose the former as the lesser of two evils.

Yes. If the flood is local, they have no way to make the fossil record. Or to counter the evidence that the earth is VERY old. Without the Flood to make all that sedimentary rock and lay down those fossils, they have to accept an old earth and evolution.

When your idea is wrong from the start, everything you do eventually paints you into a corner.

 

[Ark Guy]

Your assuming that the dating techniques used to arrive at those dates is...accurate

 

[Vance]

So, you disbelieve not only the carbon, radio-metric and isochron dating, but also the dating methods of historians who use actual historical records whenever possible? These methods are exactly the same methods used by Christian Biblical scholars for dating the events of the Bible.

 

[Ark Guy]

The levels of C-14 were less prior to the flood and shortly thereafter..making items appear older than they really are.

So, the methods may be the same, but the amount of C-14 were different.

 

[wblastyn]

The levels of C-14 were less prior to the flood and shortly thereafter..making items appear older than they really are.

So, the methods may be the same, but the amount of C-14 were different.

How do you know?

 

[Vance]

The levels of C-14 were less prior to the flood and shortly thereafter..making items appear older than they really are.

So, the methods may be the same, but the amount of C-14 were different.

Well, first of all, you will, of course, need to produce some scientific evidence of these statements, but they are besides the point. Eqyptian history is determined and confirmed by a variety of methods, including actual historical records which do not rely on any carbon dating.

One quick search shows this:

When archaeologists have access to the historical records of civilizations that had calendars and counted and recorded the passage of years, the actual age of the archaeological material may be ascertained : provided there is some basis for correlating our modern calendar with the ancient calendar. With the decipherment of the Egyptian hieroglyphics, Egyptologists had access to such an absolute timescale, and the age, in calender years, of the Egyptian dynasties could be established. Furthermore, Egyptian trade wares were used as a basis for establishing the age of the relative chronologies developed for adjoining regions, such as Palestine and Greece. Thus, Sir Arthur Evans was able to establish an accurate absolute chronology for the ancient civilizations of Crete and Greece through the use of Egyptian trade objects that appeared in his excavations : a technique known as cross-dating.

Which is from here:

http://www.1upinfo.com/encyclopedia/D/dating-absolute-dating.html

The Egyptian histories are considered so accurate due to actual historical records that it is used as a basis for determining the historical chronology of other contemporary civilizations.

So, if you assume, for the sake of argument, that the chronologies are accurate, what would your choice between the two options in the OP be?

 

[troodon]

The levels of C-14 were less prior to the flood and shortly thereafter..making items appear older than they really are.

So, the methods may be the same, but the amount of C-14 were different.

These dates are extrapolated by using Egyptian historical records and prominant ancient historians (like Herodotus). You know, sorta like we do with the Biblical geneologies?

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/4903/kings.html

http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/dynasties.htm

 

[Godzman]

If you read the Genesis genealogies literally (which is the primary argument used for a young earth, using them to "count back"), the flood takes place smack dab in the middle of the sixth Egyptian Dynasty.

So, either one of two things must be true:

1. Either the genealogies can not be read literally and used for "counting" back to the Creation event.

OR

2. The flood was not worldwide.

I still have not heard any young earth creationist adequately explain this one. I think YEC's have to make a choice here.

Hold on just a second, did you also know the possibility of skipping generations is possible, begat can mean came from, so Abraham came from Noah maybe thousands of years from then

 

[Vance]

Hold on just a second, did you also know the possibility of skipping generations is possible, begat can mean came from, so Abraham came from Noah maybe thousands of years from then

Did you read post number 3?

 

[Ark Guy]

These dates are extrapolated by using Egyptian historical records and prominant ancient historians (like Herodotus). You know, sorta like we do with the Biblical geneologies?

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/4903/kings.html

http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/dynasties.htm

FROM THE SITE YOU LINKED US TO:

The sources I have used (listed at the bottom of this page & the succeeding page) seem to be the best sources I have come across. As for the dates listed here, only the 1st half of the 12th Dynasty & the period from the 26th Dynasty (664 BC) through the Greco-Roman Period (395 AD) are known with any certainty

 

[Ark Guy]

Now this really cracked me up....taken from the second site:

All the dates should be taken with a grain of salt. Some think a good deal more than just a grain.

Remember folks...these dates that squash the bible chronology...must be taken with a GRAIN OF SALT.

NEXT​

 

[Vance]

Those quotes aren't from the site I linked, but the question really is this:

1. Do you deny the fact that the Bible, literally read, places the flood at around 2300 B.C.?

2. Do you dispute that at that time, Egypt was in its sixth dynasty?

3. If so, you must falsify all the bases upon which these conclusions on the chronology are reached, and propose a supported, alternative chronology which all the Egyptologists, who study this for a living, seem to have missed.

4. Are you sure you want to make the bold statement that the dating of the Egyptian dynasties, if true, actually quashes Biblical chronology? That would seem extremely foolhardy to draw the line so dramatically. But if you want to, we can then go and gather all the data on the Egyptian history for you to refute, and if you can't with supporting evidence (that nobody seems to have put together anywhere), then you will have allowed a blow to be struck against the Bible by your statement.

 

[troodon]

FROM THE SITE YOU LINKED US TO:

The sources I have used (listed at the bottom of this page & the succeeding page) seem to be the best sources I have come across. As for the dates listed here, only the 1st half of the 12th Dynasty & the period from the 26th Dynasty (664 BC) through the Greco-Roman Period (395 AD) are known with any certainty

I know, I read it as well. The reason they said those things is because (unlike you) they have not been brainwashed into thinking a culture's geneologies are absolute! Did you notice the descrepancies between the two sites' lists? The biggest gap is 120 hundred years. That is large (I admit) but when we're talking about the dynasties predating the flood by 800 years, it's trivial. Also, both sites put around 36 pharoahs as predating the flood despite using different sources (different sources is a legitimate conclusion due to differing time tables). Lastly, notice the 1st half of the 12th dynasty begins in 2040 BC. This is only 260 years after the alleged flood. How was a population large enough to make Egypt a self-sustaining civilization created in only 300 years AND why did the Egyptians completely ignore their actual geneology and make up a record of pharoahs extending back another 1000 years (remember that births had a 25% fatality rate even 100 years ago: reference while the deaths of the mother hovered around 10%: reference)

Those quotes aren't from the site I linked

Hehe, sorry I made the thread a little more complicated

 

[Vance]

No problem at all. The point you make is a good one, and brings up a common tactic of YEC's. Here you have scientists who are specialists in a field, which means they will debate over the minutest detail. Have you ever been to ANY type of a conference with scholars or scientists in the same field? It is warfare in the hallways! They almost get into fistfights over the smallest little details, even when the agree on 90% of the more important issues. YEC's will take these disputes and present them as if the bigger questions are still in hot dispute. You take those two disputing Egyptologists and ask them whether the chronologies are correct within 250 years and they would say in unison "well, of course!", but then go on to argue down the hallway about some miniscule 10 years difference somewhere like it was the biggest issue in Egyptology.

When he says you can't take it with a grain of salt, or that it can't be pinned down with great accuracy, he almost assuredly means the EXACT years are still suspect (and always will be), but not the general time frame.

 

[Godzman]

Did you read post number 3?

I am an OEC, vance thats what I am, at least right now I am